Posted
by
kdawsonon Tuesday November 23, 2010 @11:09AM
from the is-it-warm-out-here dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports that the good news is that emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas fell 1.3 percent compared with emissions in 2008 primarily because of the global economic downturn and an increase in carbon-dioxide uptake by the oceans and by plants on land. One big factor was La Niña, a natural seesaw shift in climate that takes place across the tropical Pacific every three to seven years, where the climate is cooler and wetter over large regions of land in the tropics, encouraging plant growth in tropical forests. However the bad news is that even with the decrease in emissions the overall concentration of CO2 rose from 385 ppm in 2008 to 387 ppm in 2009, as concentrations continue to rise even as emissions slip because even at the reduced pace, humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can scrub the gas. Many countries have agreed in principle to try to stabilize emissions at 350 ppm by century's end, which would result in a 50 percent chance of holding the increase in global average temperatures to about 2 degrees C over pre-industrial levels."

After all, it's much warmer where I am right now than it was at the same time 4 years ago. 4 years ago in my region, we had a blizzard on Thanksgiving. This year, it's about 50F. Clearly, the globe is warming uncontrollably, and since we all know CO2 emissions are causing climate change, CO2 emissions must have gone up.

A friend's son's research suggested that CO2 levels correlated with temperature change, but only after the temperature had shifted. So, no causation. Of course, there is also the historic data that shows that our temperature swing is not unprecedented, nor accelerated by us.

And while we're trying to create cars that somehow magically scrub CO2 from the air, the quality of air in Beijing is being given "hella bad" ratings.

Of course my argument is completely bogus - that was the point. The "(No, I'm not being serious)" was to indicate that I was aware of all the problems you mentioned, and was making an attempt at satirizing exactly the stupidity you describe.

>>>wholly inaccurate in your portrayal of the argument presented by global-warming proponents.

Not really. I remember three years ago when Washington and Philadelphia had an unusually warm and almost snow-free winter, and NBC, ABC, et cetera had their reporters discussing how this is clear evidence that global warming is happening." And no it wasn't just an off-the-cuff remark, but repeated day after day, with an "in depth report" on the warm winter during one of those days.

There's a difference between television sensationalism with the sole intent of capturing the interest of ignorant viewers, and actual scientific discourse. I don't think anyone qualified to have an opinion in the matter is taking the position dkleinsc parodied.

Well, let's keep to the scientific accuracy meme here: "Cold" does not equal "Snow." At very cold temperatures, it won't snow. Ask anyone who lives in the upper Midwest. It is only at moderately cold temperatures that you actually get snowfall. So, if a region that has historically not seen snow around Jan/Feb because it's usually somewhere around -20 or so, starts exhibiting a pattern of snow, this does not prove that the region is now colder. In fact, it's evidence that the region is now probably warmer

Well, for every Fox News story stating global warming is wrong because of cold weather, there's a couple of NBC/ABC/newspaper/etc stories which discuss heat waves and the like and say that they are evidence of global warming, and two or three politicians using it to justify some measure.

Difficult to cite television shows. But just last week NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Syfy, Bravo, Telemundo, etc celebrated "green week" and it included some of those tales about how heat waves prove global warming.

I also thought it was funny when they said last winter's record snowfall proved global warming as well. Something about warmer air holding more snow. Yeah. Sure. Except it wasn't a record anywhere but Baltimore and DC. Elsewhere like PennsylvaniA the snowfall was not unusual, AND the record was set in the 1950s (5 feet).

The temporary decrease in heavy industry (and thus, fall in CO2 emissions) due to a slow economy is another reason to take advantage of the situation and re-enter with a strong economy with renewable technologies in place. Unfortunately, not many people are down for spending the money to invest in a down economy. You can bet we'll see a sharp uptick in relative emissions over the next few years as more and more areas "rebound" with the same old technologies driving it.

I've heard that even if mankind disappeared tomorrow and therefore our CO2 output dropped to zero, greenhouse warming would still be happening because it's already been set in motion. It's now being pushed forward by water vapor, CO2 from volcanoes, and other factors that represent 95% of the "push" behind the change.(shrug)

As for "conspiracy" I don't buy that nonsense, but it's pretty obvious the Housing Boom was caused by an inadvertent mistake by the Clinton administration, specifically the HUD. They pas

They passed a regulation that made it illegal to deny a mortgage application even if the citizen was too poor to pay it back. Hence a run-away boom.

Bullshit.
The Community Reinvestment Act (originally passed in 1977, long before Clinton though revised numerous times since then) made it harder to avoid making loans for housing in the same neighborhoods that the banks were getting savings from, but it never required mortgages to people who could not afford them. Most of the "sub-prime" loans were made outside of the CRA. On average, "sub-prime" loans made under the CRA fared better than loans made outside of the CRA. The CRA did not cause the investme

You know it helps if you READ instead of guess. I said *90s* not 70s, and the specific *regulation* (not law) made it impossible for banks to refuse mortgages, else they'd be charged with racism by the U.S. government. This is what caused the housing boom because it allowed *anyone* to buy a house, even if they were too poor to afford it.

Not quite true. The U.S. Government spent almost a billion dollars to fund a solar panel factory in California. Unfortunately it went bankrupt because the chinese undersold them. Likewise the outlawing of incandescent bulbs (soon) resulted in the factory closing here, and the new CFL factory opening in china.

If we are moving towards a green economy, it will be China/India and other cheap labor areas that benefit. Meanwhile here at home the USG will throw-away a ton of money on solar and other factories that eventually die out. Yeah I know you probably think I'm being pessimistic.

I prefer to use the word "realist" and "observant". I can SEE the powershift from America to Asia.

I do a Lot of LEED certified building programming and I can tell you some real facts about this "Green" stuff...

Solar: effective in southern climates ONLY. Solar installations in Michigan, Northern Illinois like Chicago and Detroit are nothing but dog and pony shows. The numbers given to the Building customers as to the output and savings are at least 80% higher than the readings I am getting off the equipment directly. One customer has the entire building covered in solar panels on the roof and was told the solar has a 15 year payback. After 6 months of collecting realtime data from the building, I am calculating the Solar installation payback to be over 150 years. Their projected solar days is far FAR lower than actual. PLUS you have to send a crew up to the roof on the 8th floor to clean them every 2 months. AND do it after every snowfall in the winter. Now you have workers on an icy roof cleaning snow off of the solar panels after every storm. Yay...

LEED certification is for MARKETING only. it's a "look I'm green" badge and nothing more. Load shedding and consumption reduction will do 900% more to "save the environment" than any solar or wind installation. If you use 1,000,000 watts of power and you reduce it by 10% that is 10,000 watts saved, a 10% reduction in your bill, and far more C02 saved than installing $180,000 in solar panels and wind turbines that are made with nasty heavy metals and incredibly dangerous manufacturing processes.

Skylights, lots of windows, Proper building design (no not this cookie cutter crap) proper insulation and proper design of the workspaces and building saves way more than any "lok at me I'm greeen" add on crap you can make.

I dunno. If the certification program *promises* internalized payback and doesn't deliver, that's a problem with the program, isn't it? If an engineer promised a 15 year payback and is off by a factor of 10x, then that's either bad engineering or fraud.

While I agree with you about building design, I'm not so puritanical about showcase solar or wind projects because somebody has to be the early adopters for any technology. Early adoption is seldom an entirely pragmatic choice. As long as the people selling

I totally agree with you. Renewable energy sources are great, but they can't compete with better efficiency (which is essentially energy for free) and simple consumption reduction. If we used energy more wisely, we could probably reduce consumption by 40% without many (if any) significant lifestyle changes.

I am a long time treehugger and hated to see any harvesting of any forests at all. This is because I feel that trees are the best way of combating climate change - they regulate climate in the surrounding area. When the Romans attacked Jerusalem in 70 AD and cut down all the olive trees around the city for combat fortifications, the water retention of the soil was reduced significantly. The place referred to as the land of milk and honey became a desert wasteland. However, in recent years I have begun to acknowledge the importance of cutting trees as much as I hate it. The main threats to the forest now are invasive species (Think Chestnut blight, Gypsy moth, etc) and brush fires. The Forest Service's budget is TINY in comparison to the cost of these threats, and so selective harvesting of trees to make up for budget shortfalls has become a necessary evil. It is better to remove a few trees in one area and be able to fight off threats to the forest as a whole than to have an entire species (Chestnut, Oak, dogwood) die off reducing diversity.

Another plus is that any harvested trees are SEQUESTERING CO2. This is important - a dead tree either rots or is burnt in a fire RELEASING the stored CO2. As part of a dining room table, the Carbon just stays there. The answer is MORE trees and MORE harvesting of trees, as must as I hate the latter part.

"Forests naturally deal with fire quite well thank you"Agreed, but that's not the point the gp was trying to make. The average stable forest isn't the o2 source or co2 sink that some environmentalists would have you think. Only by removing matter from the forest and using it/burying it where it won't rot will it sequester co2 thereby reducing humanity's effect.The point being a stable forest releases co2 from wood rotting or being burnt. If it absorbed co2, then its mass would constantly increase. What is actually happening in a stable forest is that there is an almost perfect balance and therefore a healthy stable forest is more or less carbon neutral.

Now if you were to occasionally cut down the wood and put it to other uses (e.g. housing or tables as gp mentions) and allow new growth, then you have a co2 capturing scheme. If you cut it down and build concrete buildings in it's place or just let it turn to desert/scrubland then you're the human race and deserve what you'll get...

But I'm 100% sure that I'd prefer to live in a world where we don't give trillions to greenie scam artists in return for them telling us that they can fix that pesky human inclination to have kids and give them a decent standard of living.

We need to lose about 3 billion people, then keep the numbers down there until we get our eggs out of this basket. Anyone not engaged in trying to find a way to achieve that solution humanely is just profiting from the problem.

But if the US, EU, AU, and Asian communities enacted a 1 child per family policy like China has done, their respective populations would drop to 1/10th present levels by 2110. i.e. From ~3 billion to 300 million. That alone would solve our pollution problem, and yes it would be humane (no need to kill anybody).

And if we're lucky families in the US, EU, AU and Asian communities will all enact the practice of killing less valuable babies like girls and those with disabilities in hopes of trying again until they get their one alloted good baby. Just like China!

So libertarians are for the draft and enforcing birth control when they actually have to solve problems? I'm sorry, I really don't like to be the voice against moderation, but if you think that the world is overpopulated, it needs fixing, and to do that the government needs to outlaw having multiple babies, then you're not really libertarian. I know it's not an all or nothing sort of thing, but you're arguing for the draft and government control of people's reproduction rights.

Also now you're changing the original poster's message. He said BABIES not unborn fetuses, and that was the point I was addressing. Killing of babies is not allowed now and would not be allowed under a One Child Per Couple policy.

Ha, that's so funny that you said 'fail'. Very modern-hip, internet-ish of you. Anyways, back to the topic at hand...

He said BABIES not unborn fetuses,

So, you don't consider 'unborn fetuses' to be babies? Do they magically change from fetus into baby when they move out of the womb? What is it that changes them? I'd like to know.

Whether you are pro-abortion or pro-life, you can't dodge the irrefutable fact that before an abortion, there is a living baby, and after the abortion, there is a dead baby. And abortion is 100% legal in the U

And if we're lucky families in the US, EU, AU and Asian communities will all enact the practice of killing less valuable babies like girls and those with disabilities in hopes of trying again until they get their one alloted good baby. Just like China!
Yes, it's sarcasm.

You know, all the rhetoric doesn't quite obfuscate the basic truth there.
We do need to downsize the population before some natural mechanism kicks in and does it for us. There is an upper limit on how many people this planet can support regardless of the technologies we apply to extending it, and how much of the rest of the biosphere we're willing to sacrific to make it happen.
The question isn't "IF" we need to reverse population growth, it's "HOW". And it's telling that you can only see how populatio

>>>You know, all the rhetoric doesn't quite obfuscate the basic truth there. We do need to downsize the population before some natural mechanism kicks in and does it for us. There is an upper limit on how many people this planet can support....>>>

I don't disagree with you in this regard: There are too many people, and too few efforts to curb population growth.

What I was more interested in pointing out was that someone was holding up a brutal communist regime guilty of a plethora of human rights violations as a beacon of enlightenment. Of all the nations and peoples we should emulate, China is pretty far down on the list. A cavalier dismissal of their lack of compassion to justify social engineering is either ignorant or disgusting.

And if we're lucky families in the US, EU, AU and Asian communities will all enact the practice of killing less valuable babies like girls and those with disabilities in hopes of trying again until they get their one alloted good baby. Just like China!

Considering that there are more women in the U.S. workforce than men, and that there are many more women in college, and that men commit a disproportionate number of crimes, it's questionable who is more valuable. Also, women are necessary for reproduction, but men are not.

Are all of you people completely ignorant to the fact that I was criticising the use of CHINA as an appropriate source for social policy?

Are you so completely stupid that you
a) didnt understand the sarcasm disclaimer
b) actually believe I'm the one placing value on one human life over another
c) I'm supportive of any mandated regulation over my reproductive activities?

How is it, exactly, that a Mormon can be told that he has to forgo his religious teachings and stop having kids, but we need to have

The problem there is that raw numbers are useful in military conquest - something that becomes even more likely as the planet's resources get strained.

Countries like the US and much of Europe have pretty dismal population densities compared to parts of Asia. Our birthrate is also not that out of kilter - our population isn't increasing all that fast. With that in mind, we certainly don't need, or WANT, to decrease our population down to dangerous levels at a time like this - because if/when China finally does get tired to being so crowded and wants to expand a bit, we wouldn't have the people to stop them.

37% of the world's population lives in either China or India. The PLANET doesn't have as much of a population problem, so much as a few specific countries do.

Or to be more direct - if the population density of the US (or many other sparsely populated countries) was applied to the globe, our population levels would be completely sustainable. Why should we adopt population limiting measures?

Or to be more direct - if the population density of the US (or many other sparsely populated countries) was applied to the globe, our population levels would be completely sustainable. Why should we adopt population limiting measures?

By this standard waterboarding and Glenn Beck are "humane" because they don't actually kill anyone. Torturing people is "humane" unless you torture them to death. Rape is "humane" because nobody dies.

Seems like a pretty weird notion of "humane".

Here's an alternative suggestion, which unfortunately wouldn't let arrogant assholes dictate how many children people have: raise the standard of living for everyone by encouraging urbanization and free trade, and massively promote education for women. The world'

I'm cool with that, as it takes some extreme justification to support forced sterilization (drug addicts/welfare moms on their 27th child). But I also don't think we should provide tax deductions/credits/support for every child someone has. The first two are free (replacement level). Any other children you have? You pay their true economic cost, without society as a whole having to subsidize them.

That measure will further increase dis-balance between productive and old parts of population.

At 2.1 per family, one feeds one, given that the productivity span equals "old age" span.

At 1 per family, one feeds two.

This is not necessarily bad, I, personally, would welcome less consumerism and more charity from productive population like myself, but the problem is the economy which is heavily consumer based and the most consuming part of populations are young.

That alone would solve our pollution problem, and yes it would be humane (no need to kill anybody).

Just because no one is being killed doesn't mean it's humane.

It's been said that in China that fines, pressures to abort a pregnancy, and even forced sterilization accompanied second or subsequent pregnancies. And that's just the law enforcing it - there have also been reports of infanticide, neglect, and abandonment because of it.

Just because the law itself in theory is humane, doesn't mean it is humane in its application, or the decisions one must make to try and comply with it.

Problem: The planet's atmosphere is warming up due to human emissions of greenhouse gasses.
Solution: Reduce carbon emissions through a combination of economic incentive programs, industrial retrofitting, and renewable energy sources in time to prevent catastrophic global warming.
Proposed Alternate Solution: Just get everyone to agree to ignore their procreation instinct! How hard could that be!?!

This is what I love about slashdot: There's always someone out there with an alternative solution to a proble

Take away tax deductions for any children above replacement level (~2.2 in the US), and encourage education and development in the developing world so mother marry later and have many fewer children due to lower mortality rates.

The trick is simple. Help people lead better lives while taking away the subsidization of rampant consumption.

People die on their own. Life has a 100% mortality rate. Wait a while, don't replace 3 billion people that died of natural causes (i.e. life) and you've lost 3 billion from the total population without actively killing anyone.

Well that's true, but when claiming that we need to "lose" half the populace, I'd appreciate a little bit of a disclaimer least people get all eugenicsy.

And getting at a deeper issue, overpopulation is not the problem. People are a resource. They can convert food, shelter, security, and entertainment into real meaningful productive work that helps everyone more then it costs everyone. If that wasn't true, then society is a farce.
Now, pollution and emission are externalizations of factories, cars, farms

People who are against population control are Cold-hearted. The US is projected to be ~600 million by 2050 and the EU will be almost 1000 million. Due to an oil shortage (raising prices to ~$1000 a barrel) there will be a widespread shortage of food in people's homes, and millions of Americans and Europeans will starve.

People who choose this future are cold hearted. A wiser course is to limit the amount of babies produced so population will (1) hold steady from 2010-30 and then (2) go down to aroun

He didn't specify how to get the population down to that level. [lmgtfy.com]
Since some studies show that the birth rate drops as societies become more prosperous, maybe he's proposing to make us all rich. I could get onboard on that.

You obviously know very little about the FairTax. First of all those below the poverty line are exempt. Second, there's a pre-bate for food. Open a book.

The total amount collected by the government won't be reduced at all. Everything purchased by corporations, businesses, and yes the rich will be taxed. That's a huge amount of revenue. This idea that the Fair Tax is regressive is simply a fallacy. There's only one reason to be against the Fair Tax: Because you have a vested interested in government revenue

Except that the largest sources of those burning "stuff" are not who the U.N. and those seeking to profit on climate change are going after, developing nations. Which makes sense on the one hand because they have little money, except for China. China was exempted from the Kyoto Protocols as a "developing country" which not only rendered the Kyoto Protocol a joke (because China has money), it revealed the true nature of the protocol, to fleece the West.

Not trying to defend China's abysmal environmental record, but on a per capita basis [grida.no], those in the US send far more CO2 into the air than those in China. (Similarly for other developed vs developing nations.)
On a per country basis [ucsusa.org], the US is second to China's lead.

You're confusing regular pollution with CO2. CO2 is not even classed as a pollutant in the US because it isn't harmful to humans or the environment directly. We have reduced emissions quite a bit over the years. Catalytic converters, sulphur scrubbers in coal plants, etc. However, these innovations do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

CO2 is emitted whenever you burn stuff. In developed countries, we actually have cars, so we burn a lot more gas. We also use a lot more electricity, so we burn more coal. Some

More carbon is being released than absorbed by the biosphere however.
The last time atmospheric CO2 decreased year-to-year (there is a slight seasonal decrease every year) was in 1992 due to massive volcanic eruption. Its acids scrubbed out some of the CO2.

The Carbon Dioxide rate increased less in 2009 than in 2008, due to circumstance other than human intent or modification of behaviour.

You can thank La Niña, the souring oceans (and dying corals), and a slight downturn in deforestation due to the bad Economy. Can we reflect on this story again next year after this "improvement" has its chance to work its magic?

We can't "stabilize emissions at 350 ppm". We can stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 350 ppm by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 85%. We can do this by a combination of obtaining energy from sources other than fossil fuels (nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal, etc.) and using the energy more efficiently (CFL and LED lighting, increased insulation, hybrid vehicles, etc.).

Short and Sweet:* An increase in carbon-dioxide uptake does not cause emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas to fall.* Emission units are kg/s not ppm.* Primarily should be followed be ONE cause not TWO

Total air carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide levels fell. Those levels are carbon emissions - carbon consumption.Carbon consumption is done by green plants, primarily trees, and bodies of water, primarily the ocean. The ocean is getting overloaded.
Forests are getting cut down without re-planting in the third world.

There's no question mankind has abused the environment, but it's a slippery slope towards government mandated environment control. Anyone who has studied formation of tyrannies knows that it always starts with something seemingly harmless that removes previous freedoms, and just exponentiates from there.

Got any better ideas? I'm sure many people would love to hear them if you've got them. Oh, right, it's easier just to criticize how someone else is dealing with a problem than it is to actually provide a better solution.

There's no question mankind has abused the environment, but it's a slippery slope towards government mandated environment control.

Educate yourself, Mr. Libertarian. Start off by memorizing the definitions of "negative externality" and "tragedy of the commons". I would then direct you to the fact that the only solution to dealing with negative externalities is to internalize them. And that means government intervention.

And before you say it, libertarians typically attack this problem through private property ownership. ie, land pollution becomes a property rights issue, and is litigated in court accordingly. Unfortunately, air ownership makes no sense, and so there's no sensible way to deal with CO2 emissions in this way.

In short: your idealized theory is about as practical, in the real world, as communism. Deal.

It's supposed to be 16 degrees tomorrow night, here in the southern California high desert. This is about 6 weeks before we'd normally reach such low winter temps (and most years it never gets below 21 degrees at the very worst). We've already had snow down to 2700 feet, also vanishingly rare this time of year.. in fact the first time I'd seen either in 26 years here.

From one who lives in this state...maybe rethink that wish. Oh yes the winters are mild here, sort of, but do you really want day after day of unrelenting 95 degree temps with 80-90% humidity in the summer? Day after day of glorious sunshine that after two weeks begins to rot your brain and you ponder when did this state become a desert? Even the winter is looney here. One day 70, the next 20. Hell, I carry two types of coats just to deal with temperature ranges in a given day.

Because either you or the journalist are sloppy. They are describing the rate of change of CO2 which is emission - uptake. The decrease in the rate of emissions is like a deceleration. However according to the rise in PPM, emissions - uptake > 0. The confusion is equating emission with rate of change of concentration, which is incomplete.

You're presupposing that the only way carbon dioxide emissions could fall is by a declining market. There are surely other ways, such as switching to alternative energy sources. So, yes, you're being deliberately dense, so it's no surprise if you're modded down as a troll.

One of the easiest ways to cut carbon dioxide emissions is by increasing energy efficiency. This not only cuts carbon dioxide emissions, but also saves money! In the case of switching over to alternatives to energy, we're building coal plants all the time. If we build an alternative energy plant instead of a coal plant, we're effectively cutting carbon dioxide emissions for free, as long as the alternative plant doesn't cost more to build and operate than the coal plant. Yes, you're still being dense. Excee

Christian Science is also pretty goofy. Many members believe that all illness is curable by belief and prayer. One time my Dad was dating a Christian Scientist, and she initially refused to go to a doctor after she broke her leg in a skiing accident. After a few days of excruciating pain, she finally realized that having the leg set and immobilized was probably the best idea.

But, you're right, reporting from The Christian Science Monitor is usually pretty good. My dad was surprised when he realized this, of

Emissions were reduced due to economic decline.Atmospheric levels were reduced due to a climate cycle that increased absorption.Atmospheric levels actually increased due to increased emissions.

So emissions went down and up, and levels went down and up. All in the same year.

Science. We could use some here.

I see why you are getting confused. The climate is a complicated system. There isn't just one mechanism controlling the global temperature. The one you always hear about in the news is CO2 (which is a complicated system of its own), but as you have learned here today, there are other factors like the variations in the sun's output and La Niña & El Niño. El Niño was the reason that 1998 was so hot (which is why if anyone tries to use that year to argue either for or against climate change then you know that they are being deliberately misleading).

To explain how CO2 emissions can go down and yet the temperature can go up (ignoring the other factors), imagine that you have a bath filled with water. If you pull the plug then the water level drops. But if you turn on the tap to pour in the same amount of water that is going down the drain, then the water level will remain steady. It is not that the water stops going down the drain, but that the lost water is being replaced. This represents the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

CO2 is absorbed out of the atmosphere by various means, and more is emitted into the atmosphere from various sources - some of which are man made.

Back to the bath, what happens if you turn up the tap so that more water is going into the bath than can go down the plug hole? The water level rises. If you put in an extra 5% of water then the level will increase by that amount because it simply has nowhere else to go.

So does the water level go down if you reduce the water emissions by 1.3%? No, because you are still adding in 3.7% more water than the equilibrium. That is why your quoted text said "even at the reduced pace, humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can scrub the gas".

That quote is a bit misleading, because as I said before there are many sources of CO2, so it is not just the amount pumped out by humans that is causing the problem. Some people have tried to use this fact as a reason for not doing anything about global warming, saying that it is not man's fault. It is a dubious argument, and in the end a pointless one. If we want to control the environment then the easiest solution is to adjust the portion of CO2 that is generated by man.

Thanks for the explanation. I actually didn't even bother to reference temperature, since the article was well into explaining how emissions were reduced but levels were still up, that emissions were down because of diminished economic activity and that levels were reduced because of cooling that inspired vegetation which absorbed more CO2 than usual, and the apparent conclusion that levels increased because generation and absorption both increased, all because while generation was down, it was actually up.

You need some practice in reading comprehension (as do most news reporters and slashdot submitters).
It's easy:
The rate at which we added CO2 to the atmosphere went down.
The rate at which nature removes CO2 from the atmosphere went up.
Those two changes combined were not enough to lower the rate of pumping CO2 into the air below the rate that nature can remove it, so the actual amount of CO2 in the air went up.
Science, it's already being used here.

When AGW deniers claim that it's hopeless to cut carbon dioxide emissions because it relies on every country doing so, I propose this idea. Of course, it's instantly shot down as also being obviously hopeless by those same deniers. It seems like it would work to me.

As far as growing forests to take up CO2 goes, that won't do much good. When the trees die and rot the CO2 goes back into the atmosphere. You need to cut the trees down and bury them so the carbon is sequestered. Still, it's an inefficient way to